Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Speaking of the ark. A group of physicists proved scientifically that  not only could the ark float but could be filled with over 2 million sized sheep in weight. Anyway, heres the article-

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/

Kind of moot, though, as the story isn't literal.

See that in which I demonstrate a worldwide flood would require more an 36,000 Atlantic Oceans. 

 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Kind of moot, though, as the story isn't literal.

See that in which I demonstrate a worldwide flood would require more an 36,000 Atlantic Oceans. 

 

The flood waters are still there in our oceans.

[unixknight]

On 1/20/2017 at 9:21 AM, Rob Osborn said:

There is only two answers possible here. If you disprove one it has to be the other. When we see a design in nature that carries intelligent information, it was either created by an intelligent process or not. There isnt any other possibility to exist.

I think the disconnect between the two sides of the argument rests on how, exactly, the process of determining an ID works.

Most of the literature I've read on ID relies on pointing to observed phenomena, such as speciation and the presence of life, and finding ways in which known scientific principles cannot explain them.  For example, the random chance of spontaneous biogenesis is so statistically unlikely as to be impossible, even in the known size and age of the Universe.  The reaction then is to say that it MUST have been an Intelligent Designer because it cannot be explained any other way.

The problem is that it doesn't conclusively prove ID because without knowing the actual process, it's impossible to conclusively demonstrate that whatever the process was, it MUST be ID.  The true smoking gun for Intelligent Design must be something that we either know came about by an Intelligence or we must be able to conclusively show that we known enough about natural phenomena to properly rule them out leaving inly ID as a possible explanation.

A fictional example of this appears in the novel Contact.  (No, not the movie, the novel.) 

SPOILER ALERT

The scientists who ride the space capsule and meet the aliens who built it are told that the alien civilization had calculated pi out to so many digits that they did eventually find a pattern of digits whose characteristics conclusively prove that an Intelligent Designer must have created the Universe and placed those values in pi as a sort of signature, so that only a race sufficiently advanced in mathematics and computational ability could find it.  This is the sort of smoking gun ID proponents want, and Evolution proponents deny exists.

For me personally, I'm skeptical of Evolution Theory not because of my religion or any literal interpretation of Genesis.  My skepticism comes from dogmatic behavior in part of the scientific community where Evolution Theory is concerned, and problems with the theory itself that I do not feel are being addressed.  (Like with the example I showed earlier with my friend, and with the peer-review process.) 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

I think the disconnect between the two sides of the argument rests on how, exactly, the process of determining an ID works.

Most of the literature I've read on ID relies on pointing to observed phenomena, such as speciation and the presence of life, and finding ways in which known scientific principles cannot explain them.  For example, the random chance of spontaneous biogenesis is so statistically unlikely as to be impossible, even in the known size and age of the Universe.  The reaction then is to say that it MUST have been an Intelligent Designer because it cannot be explained any other way.

The problem is that it doesn't conclusively prove ID because without knowing the actual process, it's impossible to conclusively demonstrate that whatever the process was, it MUST be ID.  The true smoking gun for Intelligent Design must be something that we either know came about by an Intelligence or we must be able to conclusively show that we known enough about natural phenomena to properly rule them out leaving inly ID as a possible explanation.

A fictional example of this appears in the novel Contact.  (No, not the movie, the novel.) 

SPOILER ALERT

The scientists who ride the space capsule and meet the aliens who built it are told that the alien civilization had calculated pi out to so many digits that they did eventually find a pattern of digits whose characteristics conclusively prove that an Intelligent Designer must have created the Universe and placed those values in pi as a sort of signature, so that only a race sufficiently advanced in mathematics and computational ability could find it.  This is the sort of smoking gun ID proponents want, and Evolution proponents deny exists.

For me personally, I'm skeptical of Evolution Theory not because of my religion or any literal interpretation of Genesis.  My skepticism comes from dogmatic behavior in part of the scientific community where Evolution Theory is concerned, and problems with the theory itself that I do not feel are being addressed.  (Like with the example I showed earlier with my friend, and with the peer-review process.) 

Personally for me all things denote there is a God. I even see the very laws in nature as evidence of God. But, all that rests on my observations coupled with faith. Mainstream science will never accept ID theory because it may posit that God exists. I am more convinced that an underlying theme of science is in trying to debunk God. I think thats what the battle is really about.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Personally for me all things denote there is a God. I even see the very laws in nature as evidence of God. But, all that rests on my observations coupled with faith. Mainstream science will never accept ID theory because it may posit that God exists. I am more convinced that an underlying theme of science is in trying to debunk God. I think thats what the battle is really about.

For what it's worth, I agree with you there.  I've seen quotes by scientists who acknowledge that in a way it's almost like a game... find an explanation for things that are other than God.  Now, to be fair, that's a reasonable starting point when you're trying to figure out natural phenomena as opposed to the supernatural abilities God possesses... but I think it's been taken to an extreme.

A scientist will often tell you that science is about finding the truth.  The problem is that it's ill equipped for doing that in certain areas.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, unixknight said:

For what it's worth, I agree with you there.  I've seen quotes by scientists who acknowledge that in a way it's almost like a game... find an explanation for things that are other than God.  Now, to be fair, that's a reasonable starting point when you're trying to figure out natural phenomena as opposed to the supernatural abilities God possesses... but I think it's been taken to an extreme.

A scientist will often tell you that science is about finding the truth.  The problem is that it's ill equipped for doing that in certain areas.

Truth is paramount. It saddens me tremendously that all sides cant be open to each others ideas in a true fact finding mission. I mean if we are truly in search of the truth we should be completely honest about recognizing that all sides can add valuable insights and truth. Even at the highest levels, science in its secular dogmatic approach will sit there and endlessly debate semantics. I am sure that literally millions of man hours by good minds have been utterly wasted in trying to properly define or defend words like "theory", "scientific" and "hypothesis" by both sides. Its ridiculous! I learned what those words were in junior high in basic science class. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

 I've seen quotes by scientists who acknowledge that in a way it's almost like a game... find an explanation for things that are other than God. 

 I think all of us to some degree find what we are looking for. It's like reading Shakespeare. The monarchist find a monarchist Shakespeare. The Catholics find a Catholic Shakespeare. The atheists find an atheist...etc etc. 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I think all of us to some degree find what we are looking for. It's like reading Shakespeare. The monarchist find a monarchist Shakespeare. The Catholics find a Catholic Shakespeare. The atheists find an atheist...etc etc. 

And the Carbs find the overweight diabetic Shakespeare.

Goodness.  I'm surprised to find this thread still going.  So many people declared that they were "done" or "outta here"...

Edited January 26, 2017 by Guest

[Mike]

On 1/23/2017 at 3:20 PM, Traveler said:

In order for the bat to successfully evolve it would have to evolve 4 different attributes simultaneously.  The attributes being wings to fly, vocal capabilities to create sounds at very high frequencies, ears to hear sounds at very high frequencies and a brain to translate high frequency echoes into 3 dimensional patterns.

Help me in my attempt to understand why the bat we know of today would have had to evolve all four attributes simultaneously. 

[Mike]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Truth is paramount. It saddens me tremendously that all sides cant be open to each others ideas in a true fact finding mission. I mean if we are truly in search of the truth we should be completely honest about recognizing that all sides can add valuable insights and truth. Even at the highest levels, science in its secular dogmatic approach will sit there and endlessly debate semantics. I am sure that literally millions of man hours by good minds have been utterly wasted in trying to properly define or defend words like "theory", "scientific" and "hypothesis" by both sides. Its ridiculous! I learned what those words were in junior high in basic science class. 

We say truth is paramount. Isn't it true that nearly all people of all walks of life demonstrate this same bad habit you describe? We see it on internet forums, between political parties, between religions. Heck, we see it in High Priests groups, and at Thanksgiving dinner. hahaha.  

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

We say truth is paramount. Isn't it true that nearly all people of all walks of life demonstrate this same bad habit you describe? We see it on internet forums, between political parties, between religions. Heck, we see it in High Priests groups, and at Thanksgiving dinner. hahaha.  

Yes, we all do it. But one would think that as one scales the upper echelon of large public speaking and printed/published material that ends up as learning and teaching standards we would see less of this and not more of it.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

We say truth is paramount. Isn't it true that nearly all people of all walks of life demonstrate this same bad habit you describe? We see it on internet forums, between political parties, between religions. Heck, we see it in High Priests groups, and at Thanksgiving dinner. hahaha.  

"We both have truths, are yours the same as mine?"-Pontius Pilate from Jesus Christ Superstar.  

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Mike said:

Help me in my attempt to understand why the bat we know of today would have had to evolve all four attributes simultaneously. 

 

Because they rely on all 4 for survival.  If one was missing the species could not compete or have an advantage.

 

The Traveler

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Because they rely on all 4 for survival.  If one was missing the species could not compete or have an advantage.

I don't see why we must conclude that it couldn't compete or have an advantage. Say, for example that the bat millions of years ago could fly only,  but couldn't echolocate.  It doesn't follow that it wouldn't have survived. 

[MrShorty]

Bats are fascinating. This talk of bats set me into a quick search. A few things of note:

At the heart of the discussion around whether flight or echolocation evolved first in bats is O. Finneyi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychonycteris ). Based on the few fossil specimens of this species, they have strong evidence that this one could fly, but the ear structures for echolocation are not present (though maybe the laryngeal structures are). It's not a lot, but a little glimpse into the evidence and lack of evidence for the question of how bats might have evolved into the bats we know today.

Bats who use echolocation are mostly the "microbats" -- mostly nocturnal insectivores. The diurnal "macrobats" (fruit bats and the like) tend to not use echolocation. From what I can quickly gather, it is believed that they have lost echolocation rather than never developed it.

Edited January 27, 2017 by MrShorty

[Mike]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Bats are fascinating. This talk of bats set me into a quick search. A few things of note:

At the heart of the discussion around whether flight or echolocation evolved first in bats is O. Finneyi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychonycteris ). Based on the few fossil specimens of this species, they have strong evidence that this one could fly, but the ear structures for echolocation are not present (though maybe the laryngeal structures are). It's not a lot, but a little glimpse into the evidence and lack of evidence for the question of how bats might have evolved into the bats we know today.

Bats who use echolocation are mostly the "microbats" -- mostly nocturnal insectivores. The diurnal "macrobats" (fruit bats and the like) tend to not use echolocation. From what I can quickly gather, it is believed that they have lost echolocation rather than never developed it.

Thanks. I read about O. Finneyi, too. Sounds more reasonable to me than to say that they must have evolved all such traits simultaneously. 

[Guest]

On 1/27/2017 at 11:52 AM, Mike said:

I don't see why we must conclude that it couldn't compete or have an advantage.

We don't.  The four did NOT have to evolve simultaneously.  Traveler went out on a limb that didn't support his weight.

[Guest Godless]

Hey look, another possibly ground-breaking discovery for evolution skeptics to ignore. 

Link

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

Hey look, another possibly ground-breaking discovery for evolution skeptics to ignore. 

Link

Can't hear you, can't hear you, can't hear you, can't hear you. La la la la la la la 

[Vort]

14 hours ago, Godless said:

Hey look, another possibly ground-breaking discovery for evolution skeptics to ignore. 

Link

Why does the artist's reconstruction show a creature with barnacles growing on it, when that creature was "no more than a millimeter in size"?

[Guest Godless]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why does the artist's reconstruction show a creature with barnacles growing on it, when that creature was "no more than a millimeter in size"?

Those are body parts, possibly primative gill-like features. But you're right, they look a lot like barnacles in the artist's rendition. 

[Rob Osborn]

18 hours ago, Godless said:

Hey look, another possibly ground-breaking discovery for evolution skeptics to ignore. 

Link

I wish I could just make things up and call it science too.

[NightSG]

On 1/26/2017 at 0:00 PM, unixknight said:

The scientists who ride the space capsule and meet the aliens who built it are told that the alien civilization had calculated pi out to so many digits that they did eventually find a pattern of digits whose characteristics conclusively prove that an Intelligent Designer must have created the Universe and placed those values in pi as a sort of signature, so that only a race sufficiently advanced in mathematics and computational ability could find it.

And then they realize they made a mistake in at 347th decimal place, and a million years later discover that the signature was in e all along, not pi.

[unixknight]

18 hours ago, Godless said:

Hey look, another possibly ground-breaking discovery for evolution skeptics to ignore. 

Link

Maybe I'm just being juvenile, but the highlight of that article for me was "Its features were spectacularly preserved in the fossil record—and intriguingly, the researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus." 

Whenever I read an article like this it always talks about how magnificent this new discovery is, but then it lists problems about why it might not actually be so amazing, but no worries, a handy speculation is always offered at the end so you can go ahead and accept it as gospel. 

"Unfortunately, before a point corresponding roughly to the time at which Saccorhytus was wriggling in the mud, there are scarcely any fossils available to match the molecular clock's predictions. Some researchers have theorised that this is because before a certain point, many of the creatures they are searching for were simply too small to leave much of a fossil record. The microscopic scale of Saccorhytus, combined with the fact that it is probably the most primitive deuterostome yet discovered, appears to back this up."

[Guest Godless]

Just now, unixknight said:

Maybe I'm just being juvenile, but the highlight of that article for me was "Its features were spectacularly preserved in the fossil record—and intriguingly, the researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus." 

Yep, that was one of my biggest takeaways as well. 

Just now, unixknight said:

Whenever I read an article like this it always talks about how magnificent this new discovery is, but then it lists problems about why it might not actually be so amazing, but no worries, a handy speculation is always offered at the end so you can go ahead and accept it as gospel. 

"Unfortunately, before a point corresponding roughly to the time at which Saccorhytus was wriggling in the mud, there are scarcely any fossils available to match the molecular clock's predictions. Some researchers have theorised that this is because before a certain point, many of the creatures they are searching for were simply too small to leave much of a fossil record. The microscopic scale of Saccorhytus, combined with the fact that it is probably the most primitive deuterostome yet discovered, appears to back this up."

Science has laws that are generally accepted as truth. That's where the "gospel" aspect of it ends, however. The supplemental evidence and theories that comprise these laws are constantly, well, evolving. Saccorhytus could be an inconsequential piece of the Cambrian puzzle, or it could be an important missing link that can help us better understand the organisms that came later. It's a very new discovery with not much else to compare/contrast from that time period, so it could be a while before any meaningful conclusions are drawn from it. Regardless though, it's still a very cool discovery and I suspect that it'll have plenty of scientific value in the long run even if it turns out to not be the OG deuterostome.